[pulseaudio-discuss] [PATCH 42/56] bluetooth: Get BlueZ 5 device object

[Tanu Kaskinen]

On Fri, 2013-08-02 at 08:13 -0300, João Paulo Rechi Vita wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 8:53 AM, Tanu Kaskinen
> <tanu.kaskinen at linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2013-07-25 at 21:41 -0300, João Paulo Rechi Vita wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Tanu Kaskinen
> >> <tanu.kaskinen at linux.intel.com> wrote:
> >> > If the discovery object was just created, the devices haven't been
> >> > enumerated yet, so module-bluez5-device doesn't work without loading
> >> > module-bluez5-discover first. This is nothing new - it looks like the
> >> > old code did the same thing. I wonder why we even bother to have a
> >> > separate device module, if it can't be used without the discovery
> >> > module.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Bringing the discussion to where it belongs, as I said on 40/56,
> >> manually loading the device module doesn't work anymore. I don't know
> >> when it stopped working, but I was never something we cared much
> >> about, so perhaps we should explicitly not support manually loading
> >> it. Is there a way to enforce this via PulseAudio's module-loading
> >> system?
> >
> > Sorry, I ruined your attempt to have the discussion where it belongs. I
> > replied to this in the previous mail.
> >
> >> IIRC was Lennart's suggestion to have this architecture, back in 2008,
> >> which is similar to how module-detect/module-udev-detect loads audio
> >> drivers. Even not supporting loading module-bluez5-device without
> >> loading module-bluez5-discover, it seems to me that there is a better
> >> separation to have one module for each I/O thread and Bluetooth card
> >> than having all cards/threads being handled by one module.
> >
> > In what way is it better? It's entirely possible to keep the code in
> > separate files without also having a separate module. I don't personally
> > see the benefit of a separate module.
> >
> 
> I don't think we should change this architecture at this very moment.
> Maybe we can get back to this point later on, if we decide the
> benefits are worth the work.

Fair enough.

-- 
Tanu